In the article light up basic directions scientifc-pedagogical activity of S.I. Tikhenko, related to science of criminal law. The contribution of this scientist is determined to development of the indicated science on the basis of the archived sources.

The article is devoted to the legal and psychological problems of formation of investigator’s personal convictions in evaluating of investigation results and evidences at diferent stages of criminal proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedural Law of Ukraine. It is noted that the theory and practice developed requirements to be met belief investigator, detective, which is characterized by confdence in the correctness of the decision in the criminal proceedings, formed conclusions that should be established: the ethical norms and rights; on required professional qualities preliminary investigation the investigator; on the study identifed, procedural recorded removed, inspected and assessed the evidence preserved; consideration of each separately and all evidence in the relationship; on a comprehensive, full and objective examination of the criminal proceedings; on the evidence that would be allowed to take the only possible decision pravosudne. The author made a conclusion of necessity of introducing a new article: «Personal belief as a basis for evaluation of the criminal proceedings’ results» into the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is noted that the investigator, detective, prosecutor, investigating judge within the procedural powers at each stage of pretrial investigation carried out proving, forming conclusions on criminal proceedings based on personal beliefs, the results of which are fed to the indictment. Further study of legal and psychological aspects of the formation of personal conviction investigator in the exercise of criminal proceedings for the optimization of its operations will in many cases avoid professional errors and ensure proper preparation, adoption and implementation of decisions in criminal proceedings, which in itself is the most important guarantee of human subjects’ objects of criminal proceedings

Criminal procedural code of Ukraine 2012 has forbidden forwarding materials of pre-trial proceedings along with the indictment to a court. Thus issues involved in the right moment of producing evidence by the parties, especially by the prosecution which has the burden of proof in a trial. It has negative consequences in the judicial practice as it’s diferent on the issue. Lawmaker has made three controversial rules in the Code on the issue of the right moment when parties should forward materials, including the prosecution, to a court of the frst instance. Art. 317 of the Code which provides that After the case is assigned for trial, the presiding judge shall be required to provide the opportunity to the participants in court proceedings, if they fle a motion thereon, to examine the materials of the criminal proceedings, is in the Section IV «Court Proceedings in the First Instance», but this stage of the criminal process doesn’t provide any cases of establishing of facts and circumstances of the criminal proceeding by examining evidence, except criminal proceeding based on agreements and examining the issue of relief from criminal liability. On the other hand, para. 4 of the Art. 291 of the Code provide that «before commencement of the trial» rise some questions as giving the name of the paragraph 3 of the Chapter 28, the lawmaker interpret the «trial» as the stage of the criminal proceedings in general as well as the part of a trial traditionally called «judicial inquiry» in the law literature so it’s ambiguous to which moment the prohibition is in force. Criminal proceeding based on agreements allows demanding documents, summoning and examining witnesses only to make sure that that the agreement was concluded by the parties thereto voluntarily. According to the articles 291, 317, 318, 474 of the Code should be changed and provisions on the moment of producing evidence by the parties and demanding materials by the court.

Relevant questions of applying of current legislation in aspects of implementation of disproving the suspicion (primary charge) by the defense during the pre-trial investigation were analyzed in this article. In this paper conception of such terms as «defense», «function of defense», methods of the implementation of the function of defense were described. One of the forms of implementation of the function of defense in a criminal case – disproving (primary charge) was analyzed. The author made his own classifcation of methods of the disproving of suspicion (primary charge) during the pre-trial investigation. Completed and partly completed forms of suspicion (primary charge) by the amount of disproving are determined. Depending on an objective of the disproving of the suspicion (primary charge) these methods were determined: 1) disproving, which refers to acceptation of intermediate procedural decision; 2) disproving, which refers to acceptation of the resulting procedural decision during the pre-trial investigation. It is noted that the initial rebuttal prosecution during the preliminary investigation as possible through the participation of the defense in the conduct of investigation (search) action, during which declared the relevant application. In the article concluded that function of the attorney, which refers to disproving of the suspicion (primary charge), is impossible without collection and presentation of evidences during pre-trial investigation. Author pointed out the actual inequality of procedural possibilities of the defense and prosecution in form of getting evidences about the completed and partly completed disproving of the suspicion (primary charge), rehabilitation of innocent and extenuation of amenability of guilty

In the article carried critical analysis of modern concepts of criminal procedure proving. Proved discrepancy these concepts for modern mixed models of criminal procedure. Proposed author’s concept of criminal procedural proving and justifed advisability of implementing her in modern model of mixed criminal process of Ukraine. The methodological basis of the concept are the theory of cognition, activity, argumentation, interpretation. The concept is based on the form (type) of domestic criminal procedure, which was introduced by the current Criminal procedure code of Ukraine, as well as on the three classical criminal procedural functions: prosecution; protection; judicial consideration and resolving the case (administering justice), that underlie the criminal proceedings and, in particular, of criminal procedural proving. Proposed that criminal procedural proving as cognitive, practical, legal and mental activity has own external and internal structure. External structural elements of criminal procedural proving that constitute a single indissoluble process: 1) obtaining evidence; 2) using evidence. Internal structural elements of criminal procedural proving are: object, topic, subject, design, objective, means, result. These elements are interdependent. Their essence is due of the type of criminal procedure and criminal procedural functions, based on a procedural interest subject (carriers) these functions, which is based on the respective needs and motivations of criminal procedural proving. Each of the above indicated structural elements of proving has its own characteristics for implementing subjects of proving their functions. Disclosed the content of each of the structural elements of criminal procedural proving and defned his concept

The necessity and peculiarities of the concept of «Operational units proving criminal procedure» as a scientifc category, which is to form the basis of the direction of scientifc development, taking into account trends to strengthen the communication of operational activities and criminal proceedings. Determined that the investigative operations of state is an independent legal institution has its own goals, objectives, specifc means of their implementation. It is regulated by special laws of Ukraine and carried out only certain subjects. However, operational-search activities are always carried out in the interests of criminal justice and served as a means of ensuring the implementation of tasks of criminal proceedings. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive analysis of the organic law enunciated objectives investigative and criminal proceedings. One of the main tasks means criminal proceedings is proof procedure. Operational units law enforcement were not subjects of proof in the past, and not as per current legislation. However, their activity plays an important and sometimes crucial role in this process. Issues of particular relevance to operational units of the process of proving acquired after the enactment in 2012 of the current Code of Ukraine, when investigating its own forces were not physically able to simultaneously collect evidence in criminal proceedings, which received hundreds each of them for the pre-trial investigation. In this case, due to imperfect legal regulation of relations between the investigator, prosecutor and operative divisions there are numerous problems that greatly reduce the quality process providing the latest evidence. The solution to many of these problems is not possible without understanding the conceptual foundations providing operative divisions of proof in a criminal trial

The article is devoted to the review of the the grounds of application preventive measure in the form of detention. In this regard, reviewed the legislation, litigation on these issues and examined the criteria for determining and classifying the grounds preventive measure in the form of detention. According to ch. 2, Art. 177 Code of Ukraine grounds preventive measures include the following elements: the presence of reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal ofense by a person; availability risks that give sufcient reasons investigating judge of the court to believe that a suspect might fee from the pre-trial investigation, trial, interfere with the criminal proceedings or continue illegal activities, destroy, conceal or distort any of the things or documents with essential to establish the circumstances of the criminal ofense and so on. Reasons for use of detention can be divided into: 1) procedural grounds, which is the duty of the prosecutor to prove that none of the softer precautions can prevent risks in the performance of the suspect, accused entrusted to him procedural obligations; 2) material base, that relating to the qualifcation of actions of the person and his previous criminal activity. Consider that the grounds for a preventive measure in the form of detention, from a theoretical point of view, be regarded as facts, which binds of law in Ukraine CCP authorized persons to limitations in criminal proceedings within the constitutional right of the suspect, accused at liberty and personal security through the use of detention. Only comprehensive application of the CCP Ukraine provided grounds for a preventive measure in the form of detention, can objectively assist in making decisions and procedural safeguards to ensure the rights and freedoms during the preventive measure of an exceptional nature.

The article is dedicated to the research of features of storage of material evidences by the prosecution side. Storage of material evidences together with the criminal proceedings is considered as a general rule. Exceptions from this rule are the cases of storage of material evidences in a special room, special safe, regime-secret unit or relevant institutions. The transfer of material evidences for storage in the special room, special safe, regime-secret unit and relevant institutions (as an exception from the general rule of their storage together with the criminal proceedings) shall be allowed only under certain conditions, established by the existing legislation. The conditions, necessary for the transfer of material evidences for storage in the special room, special safe, regime-secret unit and relevant institutions, investigated. Thus, the necessary conditions for the transfer of material evidences for storage in the special room or special safe of the agency, which included investigating unit, are: 1) the attribution of material objects to the material evidences, which are not specifed by parts 17–26 of Procedure for storage material evidences by the prosecution side; 2) the failure to store such material evidences together with the criminal proceedings because of their physical properties: size, quantity, weight, volume. The necessary conditions for the transfer of material evidences for storage in the regime-secret unit of the agency, which included investigating unit, are: 1) material evidences referring to the number of material carriers of classifed information; 2) they are attached to the pre-trial investigation materials. The necessary conditions for the transfer of material evidences for storage by relevant institutions are: 1) the attribution of material objects to the material evidences, specifed by parts 17–26 of Procedure for storage material evidences by the prosecution side; 2) the attribution of relevant institutions, which transmitted the material evidences, to the number of institutions, specifed by parts 17–26 of Procedure for storage material evidences by the prosecution side

On the basis of the scientifc system analysis contained in scientifc sources viewpoints of scientists and practitioners in the article the essence of criminal procedural admissibility of evidence as their inalienable property, set criteria for its defnition. In scientifc literature admissibility seen as an intrinsic property of evidence. However, characterizes the frst admissibility of evidence and their procedural sources that form its unity evidence. If the actual data and procedural sources have properties admissibility, in its unity they may form evidence in criminal proceedings, meaning that evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings exists. However, in case of compliance evidence and their sources admissibility criterion, we can speak of the same name and evidence property. Content admissibility as property criminal procedure evidence consists of four rules (conditions, criteria): 1) the proper subject of its receipt, 2) the legality of sources of information; 3) use for their production only statutory investigatory or judicial action; 4) conducting investigative or judicial actions in compliance with statutory requirements. Source of actual information should also be assessed as acceptable, that is, on the use of criminal procedural law which does not contain prohibitions (for example, does not meet the admissibility of such information sources f as defender, priest, doctor, etc., provide information that became known to them in connection with their professional duties; witness who can explain the primary source of the information notifed; not a valid source of evidence anonymous letter and so on). Also the Institute the admissibility of evidence in the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine is analyzed by its individual shortcomings. The conclusion about the relationship of the admissibility of evidence and procedural forms of their receipt were done.

Criminal proceeding of persons who have committed a crime is a form of implementation of criminal policy of country. Thereby law enforcement authorities protect legal rights of victims, other participants of criminal proceedings or society in general. But sometimes it’s better not to punish but to reeducate such ofenders. For these purposes Criminal Code of Ukraine provides possibility of releasing the person from criminal liability. But before prosecutor could draft a motion on releasing the person from criminal liability, he must establish some circumstances, which are provided in Criminal Code of Ukraine. Without establishing such circumstances pre-trial investigation will be incomplete, and court can’t render legal and reasonable decision. At this article author notices diferent amount of circumstances that must be proven in diferent cases, including gravity of crime, assistance in the exposure of a crime, compensation for the damage person inficted or other restitution for the damage caused as a result of the crime, reconciliation person who has committed a crime with the victim, expiration of statutes limitation on actions, probation and etc. Also author analyzes proves aimed at establishing such circumstances and shows some examples of them in the article. It is concluded that in the preparation of the application for exemption from criminal responsibility of the authorized person, depending on the grounds specifed in the relevant part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine shall establish the severity of the crime, the fact of having done the frst time or negligently, and prove sincere repentance, active facilitate the investigation of criminal ofenses, the fact of damages, ofenses changing circumstances. Only a complete investigation of the circumstances warrants making legal and reasonable solution that fully ensure the rights, freedoms and legal interests of participants of criminal proceedings

The article describes the evolution of basic views on the concept of domestic scholars evidence in criminal proceedings. Author formulates assumptions to understand the evidence in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the legislative defnition (decision) Procedure proof of concept (p. 1, art. 84 of the current ???). Standardized proof of concept in the ??? can function as a recognized scale (standard) understanding of communication in the course of criminal proceedings participants. What is imperfect, so is useful in the sense that it is a regulatory «gate» through which you can log in to the concept of evidence, which, unfortunately, has not worked properly on a theoretical level. So lawyers for the qualifed legal work with the evidence necessary to have special procedural means (tools) – a legal construction of «the evidence». The attention that procedural stage formation of criminal forensic evidence begins in pre-trial investigation, where it is carried out within the inherent inquisitorial procedures as a result of implementing the principles favor procuratori. According ch. 1, Art. 84 CPC Indictment power (the investigator and prosecutor) authorized to admit it made the same material (evidence) prima facie evidence by inquisition infestation. So they are quite suitable, so to speak, for «internal use only» in the interest of the preliminary investigation. «True», ie criminal judicial evidence, these materials are only the prosecution in the trial stage. This is the domain of the judiciary, which under organically inherent adversarial procedure, carried out the study material pre-trial investigation. The results of this verifcation only the court has the exclusive right to declare formed within a triangle procedural «trial – the prosecution – the defense» material composition evidence also use it in conjunction with other evidence to justify the sentence

The author analyzed the correlation of concepts, some criminal law and criminal procedural aspects of derailment of the absence of a criminal ofense, establishment of the absence of a corpus of criminal ofense and derailment of sufcient evidences to prove the guilt of a person in court and exhaustion of the possibilities of their obtaining as a basis for terminating the criminal proceedings. Attention is drawn to certain inconsistencies of the provisions of the CPC as for the determination of the reasons for terminating the criminal proceedings and circumstances subject to proof in criminal proceedings. Installing the absence of corpus individual warehouse criminal ofense Derailment sufcient evidence to prove the guilt of a person in court and exhaustion of opportunities to get them, enactment of a law which abolished criminal liability for acts committed by a person, the lack of criminally punishable act and lack of social danger of the act which formally contains elements of crime, the commission of which a notifcation made on suspicion of committing, are circumstances which exclude a crime at all, because they are signs (elements) of a crime. In the presence of any of the circumstances specifed event action. The commission is put in guilt (charged with) the person is absent. Therefore, in the case of any of these circumstances in the decision of the investigator, prosecutor, as well as the acquittal as grounds for terminating the criminal proceedings is a reference to establish the absence of crime, with the specifcation of which is the specifed circumstances (signs) events no ofense

On the basis of the analysis of views and provisions of the criminal code of Ukraine expressed in scientifc literature, it was proposed by author a defnition of tactics of state prosecution and was made a classifcation of its methods. Author paid a big attention to investigation of a defnition of tactics of state prosecution. Taking into consideration that defnition of «state prosecution» was not developed by scientists, author proposed identify it like a system of scientifc provisions and developed on its basis practical recommendations concerning ways of optimization of prosecutor professional activity, which are used with the aim of persuade a court in legality and justifability of accusation presented. Author came to a conclusion, that realization of possibilities of tactic of state prosecution, realized through the system of its methods, to which relates tactical options, tactic combinations and tactic recommendations. As a basic element of tactic of state prosecution was identifed tactic method, which should be deemed as optimal way of action in a process of communication, searching, discovery, fxation, extraction, usage of evidence with the aim of supporting of state prosecution in a court, execution of defence countermeasure in competitive court procedure. Author proposed classifcation of tactical devices of state prosecution, the basis of which include following criteria: type of investigating action, during which tactical option is used by prosecutor, source of formation, character of situations which take place during the p

The problems of criminal law ensuring of freedom of speech through the prism of the media protection European and international standards are considered in this article. It is established that the legal regulation of freedom of speech and media activity in Ukraine fully complies with international and European standards of fundamental human rights and freedoms protection. At the same time, as opposed to Europe, a good legal basis does not provide efcient protection of journalists’ activities in gathering, gaining and freely disseminating of information in Ukraine. For the last three months in Ukraine there have been made 139 assaults on journalists on duty, the majority of these attacks were committed by law enforcement ofcials. On the abovementioned ground the strengthening of criminal law protection of journalists’ activities in Ukraine by means of making appropriate amendments to Criminal Code is proposed. The author of the article deals with the strengthening of the criminal legal guarantees of freedom of speech in Ukraine. We analyze the current legislation and the legislative proposals for improving the criminal law in the area of criminal protection of journalists by illegal infuence. The necessity of changes in the bill number 1630 to enhance the efectiveness of the criminal law under Art. 171 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is concluded that the jurisprudence of no examples of sanctions ch. 2, Art. 171 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. However, analysis of sanction for prosecution of a journalist for the performance of professional duties or criticism or committed by a group of people allows you to specify some legal inaccuracies. First, as in the frst part, there is no such type of punishment as public or remedial work. Second, disqualifcation to hold certain positions contemplated only as a basic form of punishment.

The article is devoted to the establishment of the doctrine of human hands fngerprint – fngerprinting. History of using papillary traces patterns for agreements confrmation in ancient Babylon, China, Egypt and further for ofenders identifcation up to 1900s have been studied. The contribution to the development of fngerprinting of M. Malpighi, J. Purkyne, W. Herschel, H. Faulds, F. Galton, H. Vuchetich and others have been analysed. Fingerprinting studies the properties and structure of papillary lines and methods of it’s detection, fxation, seizure and investigation for identifcation purpose. Nowadays fngerprinting is widely used in criminalistics, but initially it remained unnoticed. History of this science has got powerful impetus thanks to two authors – William Herschel and Henry Faulds. They had independently hypothesized the possibility of identifcation by fngerprints and published their research in the British scientifc journal «Nature» in 1880. British anthropologist Francis Galton generalized their researches, classifed variation of papillary lines in a single system. He became well-known in criminalistics as the founder of person identifcation by fngerprint. Huan Vuchetich was the frst, who gave name to the new identifcation method – Fingerprinting. Fingerprint registration system was frst implemented in law enforcement bodies of Great Britain in 1895. It have been expanded in Argentina (1896), British India (1897), England (1900), Austria, Denmark, Hungary (1902), Germany, Brazil, Chile (1903), Russia, Bolivia (1906), Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay (1908) and later in other countries

The article studies the peculiarities of forming the subject of proof in civil proceedings considering civil procedural requirements of form and procedure established by the civil procedural legislation of Ukraine. It is noted that forming the subject of proof begins in resolving the issue of opening court proceedings, what does analysis of the contents of the claim (application). The analysis of content claim (application) can make certain assumptions about facts and circumstances that require to resolve the case, the adoption of a legitimate and reasonable decisions. Continues forming the subject of evidence during the proceedings before the trial, aided by: a) an analysis of the substantive law; b) the preliminary hearing, which is held with the parties and other persons involved in the case, in compliance with the general rules established by civil procedural law for the trial with the relevant exceptions (of Sections 2, 11 Art. 130 CPC of Ukraine); a) preparing a case for trial, which consists of a set of proceedings under part. 6. 130 CPC of Ukraine to ensure proper and quick resolution of the case. Developed and completed the formation of the subject of proof on trial. The presence of all stakeholders, the implementation of their rights and duties under civil procedural law afects the adjustment and the fnal forming the subject of proof. The results of fact-fnding and circumstances of the subject of evidence appear in descriptive and motivation part of the judgment, which is accepted and proclaimed at this stage of civil proceedings in accordance with Part. 3. 208, p. Art. 215, 218 CPC of Ukraine.

The article examines the structural elements of the scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The author defnes the main purpose of providing scientifc and advisory software of the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and establishes the basic principles of scientifc and advisory support to the administration of justice in the supreme judicial body of the country. The article states that the purpose of scientifc and advisory maintenance of the activity of the Supreme Court of Ukraine is to create necessary conditions for the efective implementation by the Supreme Court of Ukraine their functional authorities by introducing the aggregate consulting, organizational and informational events. The author believes that the legality, professionalism, consistency, efciency, completeness and objectivity are the principles of scientifc and advisory support of the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The principle of legality scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine can be defned as normative requirement that obliges all those involved in the system scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to apply the rules of the Constitution, legislation should not contradict the Basic Law. scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine enable the Supreme Court of its powers. However, the principle of legality, subjects scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities have no right to intervene directly in the process of justice. It is proved that the principle of professionalism as a prerequisite for the efciency of the entire system of legality scientifc and advisory software system to ensure the activities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

The article based on the study of sources of criminal procedural law, criminal procedural theory of prove, forensic and other scientifc literature, and systematic analysis of materials forensic practice investigates the problematic issues of legality prosecutor obtaining evidence during the investigation mass riots. The identifed aspects of the recognition of evidence obtained during the preliminary investigation mass riots appropriate and acceptable proposed solutions. Important task for criminal proceedings under is the legality of obtaining evidence under preliminary investigation the mass riots, so that during the trial on their basis was made legal, grounded and reasoned judgment on anyone who committed studied criminal ofenses. The analysis of the investigative and judicial practice in criminal proceedings of the mass riots proves the presence of a number of issues on the legality of obtaining evidence during the investigation mass riots. Of particular relevance is the issue is where in the trial raises the question of the unsuitability of such evidence be substantiated conviction to persons who committed the mass riots. The purpose of that article is to outline the key challenges the legality of the prosecutor to obtain evidence during pretrial investigation mass riots and providing scientifcally based recommendations for their solution. The most problematic of the lawfulness of obtaining evidence during pretrial investigation mass riots are: the absence in the criminal proceedings procedural documents proving the legality of the proceedings, which resulted obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, lack of protocol inspection of the scene of evidence of traces, objects, documents found and seized in the course of conducting, conducting relevant proceedings without the involvement of defense, where appropriate, etc

Unfortunately, the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine still contains some controversial provisions. Thus, the general jurisdiction courts at the beginning of the court consideration do not fulfll the requirements of the art. 349 CPC of Ukraine about determination of the amounts of evidence subject to investigation and the order of such investigation in an equal manner. In practice there are cases when the prosecution refuses referring to certain procedural documents available (investigation reports, etc.), material evidence or expert opinions for the grounding of the order of their investigation suggested by the prosecutor. Consequently, the court cannot approve specifed amount of evidence for investigation (in particular, the difculty appear to defne persons to summon to appear before court). The issues of determining the order of their investigation, according t the p. 2 art. 349 of the CPC of Ukraine, also appears problematic, as the court is not informed, in particular, about the availability of material evidence, their amount and location, etc. Besides, the absence of the prosecution’s «desire» to come up with concrete amount of evidence with which the prosecutor will confrm the circumstances, provided for by the art. 91 CPC of Ukraine, hinders the court’s consideration of issues about the so-called «obviously inadmissible» evidence which may be resolved also at the preliminary procedure stage. The issues above arise with relation to the absence of the «amount of evidence» interpretation in the disposition of the art. 349 and other norms of Ukraine CPC which is evaluative notion with regard to which it requires deeper studying To our point of view, during determination of the amount of evidence and the order of their investigation the following is logical for presentation to the prosecution and defense: ?) certain documents about conducting the procedural actions; ?) defned material evidence ?) expert opinion. One of the ways of determining the amount of evidence and the order of their investigation, to our point of view, is the direction not only for the procedural actions, which resulted in the evidence acquisition, but also to the procedural resources where these or that evidence is fxed. We believe that the introduction of such provisions into the requirements of the art. 109 CPC of Ukraine will allow the court approving the order and amount of evidence investigation which will provide for the compliance with the reasonable terms of the court investigation. In case of legislative recognition of the said approach the set of issues are settled which the defense may ask within rendering legal aid to the clien

On the basis of scientifc sources of criminal law, criminal procedure, criminalistiks and other sciences, criminal and criminal procedural law, materials of investigative, judicial and prosecutorial practices in the article the problematic aspects of determining the circumstances, which should be proved in criminal proceedings about robberies are considered. The aspects of setting individual circumstances that are the subject of proof in criminal proceedings of these crimes were identifed. Recommendations for improving management efciency procedural proceedings in the investigation of these types of crimes were proposed. Despite the fact that the establishment of the above circumstances is mandatory in all criminal proceedings, investigative and judicial practice of investigation of robberies and armed assaults suggests that investigators, prosecutors often ignore these requirements, exhibit inattention, lack of interest, their activities should while formal. Judges, in turn, do not pay enough attention to the violation, which allowed for pre-trial investigation of this category of proceedings. These defciencies lead to low efciency of pre-trial investigation and consequently entail investigative and judicial errors not to bring to justice and punish innocent people. First, it reduces the quality of investigation of robberies and armed assaults, and reduced the authority of the police investigators, prosecutors – judicial leaders and those who supervise compliance with the law when investigating crimes of this category in the eyes of the population.

?? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????????? ???????????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ???? ??????? ?. ?. ??????????? ??? ??????? ????????? ???????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????, ? ???? ?????????? ?? ???? ?????????: 1. ?? ? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ??????????, ??????????????? ?? ?????????????? ??????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ?????????? ??????????-?????????? ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ? ?????????? ????????????? ????????????

One of the celerantes proceedings in the CPC Ukraine is «the shortened trial». According to the third paragraph of Article 349 of the CPC Ukraine the court has the right, if the participants in court proceedings do not object thereto, to fnd that examination of evidence in respect of indisputable circumstances is unnecessary. In so doing, the court ascertains whether said persons understand correctly the contents of such circumstances, whether there are no doubts regarding voluntary nature of their position, as well as explains to them that in such a case they will be deprived of the right to challenge these circumstances by way of appeal. There are many unresolved questions in theory of criminal procedure and practical activity, such as: list of obligatory is judicial-investigatory actions, participation of a defense counsel; motivation of judgments. The inconsistency of court practice in the application of the third paragraph of Article 349 of the CPC requires clarifcation of the normative regulation of the procedure, which in literature is called «abbreviated judicial investigation» or «simplifed proceedings» in relation to: fxing confession of guilt as the conditions of application of the third paragraph of Article part 3 of article 349 of the CPC; recognized the compulsory participation of defense counsel; fxing special requirements concerning the motivation part of the judgment, which is approved in the order of the third paragraph of Article part 3 of article 349 of the CPC. The motivation part of the judgment must contain links to the evidence, that had been examined in court (in particular, the accused’s testimony), and also the indication that the circumstances of criminal proceedings (in whole or in part), which are not disputed by parties to criminal proceedings, without stating the evidence on which they are installed, because collected in the pre-trial investigation and is not investigated in court factual data is not judicial evidence.

?????? ??????? ??????????? ????, ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????????? (?? 80-????? ? ??? ??????????)

??????? ?????????-????????? ???????, ?????????? ???????????- ????????????? ????????

IV ?????????? ???????-????????? ??????????? «??????????? ???????»

The article focuses on an interview of a child who is a victim of crime in criminal proceedings. Particular attention is paid to the place of interview. According to international standards, children, who are victims of crimes, are interviewed in the specially-equipped rooms, which are called «green room». Especially, it is mandatory in cases of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and in cases of sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not contain clear rules of interview of a child in a special room, but the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse contains this provision. In practice, the person conducting the interrogation continued to interview children in their working ofces or at home, where the child lives or at the place of the crime, which is undesirable for the child and it may cause more psychological damage. It is noted that thorough preparation for questioning a child victim of crime has a positive result, because the injured child often has the most complete data of a crime in general, the appearance of the ofender, his conduct or other specifc circumstances of the crime and evidence of child victims is the most important sources of information. A good choice of venue interrogation increases the chances that the child will feel more comfortable, safe and able to provide full and consistent evidence. International standards for the interview of a child based on the fact that children perceive and describe everything that happens around them only in the inherent ways. It is required not only specifc skills but also the special conditions in order to set a contact The interview process must be carefully planned and prepared, and place of the interview should be especially friendly to a child.

Based on the analysis of the valid provisions of the criminal procedure law, scientifc literature, legal practice and the survey of lawyers, author of the article highlights areas of realization criminal procedural guarantees to using defender the means of obtaining evidence in pre-trial investigation. It is noted that for ensuring proper criminal procedural guarantees to using defender the means of obtaining evidence in pre-trial investigation by way of demanding and obtaining from state authorities, bodies of local government, enterprises, institutions, organisations, ofcials and natural persons objects, copies of documents, information, audit and inspection reports and realization adversarial principles of criminal proceedings, advisable p. 1 art. 85 CPC of Ukraine a paragraph 2 to shall read as follows: «Evidence is found admissible if obtained by advocate through a procedure prescribed Law of Ukraine «On Advocacy and Legal Practice». Substantiates the necessity making changes to paragraph 2 part 3 article 93 CPC of Ukraine: Investigative (search) activities are initiated by the defence, victim or representative of the legal person in whose respect proceedings are taken by way of fling appropriate request with the investigating judge. Ofered in the CPC of Ukraine determine the procedural order use by defender provisional access to objects and documents containing information that is a State secret. It is noted that if to obtain from participants in criminal proceedings and other persons, subject to the their consent performed by defender then the course and results of this obtain shall be entered in the record, which should meet requirements of Articles 104–107 of this Code. ?ourse and results of this obtain shall be necessarily fx by technical means?

Based on analysis of sources of criminal law and procedure, criminalisticks, criminology, forensic analysis, the article deals with problematic aspects appointment and carrying out this type of expert studies as technical and forensic research documents. It is stressed the importance of research to proof in criminal proceedings for economic crimes investigated problematic issues of recognition of research evidence in criminal proceedings. During the investigation of economic crimes prosecutor often need to use specialized knowledge to solve a specifc issue in the criminal proceedings. The simplest and most common in practice of investigation of economic crimes form the use of special knowledge is non-procedural, in the form of consultations with specialists (in the banking sector, economists, accountants, tax ofcers, criminologists, etc.). However, this form of use of special knowledge has resulted in obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings, procedural status of specialist, according to current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (Articles 71, 72) does not provide a fully guarantee receipt of evidence that may be mentioned procedural evidence in criminal proceedings. Evidence can only be results of specialized knowledge in legal form. The subject, which has such knowledge, is an expert who conducts forensic examination at the request of parties to criminal proceedings or on behalf of the investigating judge or the court to determine if the circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings, requires special knowledge. These results of specialized knowledge issued in the form of procedural documents – the expert who is one provided by applicable criminal law proceedings types of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Working forensic meaningful information in criminal proceedings requires participant’s ownership and efective operational methods of cognition. Traditional, commonly used methods are not always sufciently refecting the possibility of processing information with regard to its new types and sources. A key role in this belongs to the institutional jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings. The article analyse and characterize the verifcation information in the proceedings of the review of judicial decisions take account of procedural and criminological component determination process and its implementation with the possibilities of the use of its results. Therefore, from the beginning we disclose the components of the process of verifcation of information in the proceedings of judicial review: object of verifcation; the subject of verifcation (perception of the subject-and the subject-transfer); verifcation mechanism; conclusions